Remember when Obama took a cheap shot at the SCOTUS during his SOTU speech? As Irony would have it, that very same SCOTUS may very well be the deciding factor on his health care bill.

Karma can be a real bitch.

CoMoChief

03-23-2010, 01:50 AM

I've been saying this for a while ever since he made his SOTU address.

Obamacare will make it's way to the US Supreme Court.....where BO is not exactly the most popular person right now.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 06:13 AM

jeeezzz how many threads do you have to start on the legal ways Republicans are wasting their time with lawsuits?

blaise

03-23-2010, 06:18 AM

jeeezzz how many threads do you have to start on the legal ways Republicans are wasting their time with lawsuits?

I know, it's taking up space for all the "REPUKES KILL YOURSELF" threads.

Chiefshrink

03-23-2010, 06:23 AM

I've been saying this for a while ever since he made his SOTU address.

Obamacare will make it's way to the US Supreme Court.....where BO is not exactly the most popular person right now.

I concur but Chicago politics "WILL RULE" as usual.:shake::shake:

Chiefshrink

03-23-2010, 06:24 AM

It will be a long ass haul for this to make it to the SC and all these dominated Lib courts prior to the SC will make sure of it.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 06:35 AM

It will be a long ass haul for this to make it to the SC and all these dominated Lib courts prior to the SC will make sure of it.Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago. the federal government has the right to dictate to individuals anything it wants to dictate to in the USA. Individual states trying to "protect" their rights have consistently been struck down. This will be no different. It's just gamemanship and politics. Republicans pandering to their base. It's going no where.

Miles

03-23-2010, 06:42 AM

It will be a long ass haul for this to make it to the SC and all these dominated Lib courts prior to the SC will make sure of it.

It is more of an issue of existing judicial precedent than some supposed bias of the system.

mlyonsd

03-23-2010, 06:55 AM

Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago. the federal government has the right to dictate to individuals anything it wants to dictate to in the USA. Individual states trying to "protect" their rights have consistently been struck down. This will be no different. It's just gamemanship and politics. Republicans pandering to their base. It's going no where.

If you think it's just republicans pandering to their base you'd be wrong. They are also pandering to independents, the majority of which don't like this bill and see it as more erosion of their rights.

Republicans will keep the pressure up and dems will pay the price in November.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 07:24 AM

If you think it's just republicans pandering to their base you'd be wrong. They are also pandering to independents, the majority of which don't like this bill and see it as more erosion of their rights.

Republicans will keep the pressure up and dems will pay the price in November.I don't think so. When people actually read whats in the bill and get past the Republican demonizing, death panels to kill grandma lies they will see there are a lot of benefits to this bill. But this thread was about the legal ways to roll the bill back. Your talking about roling it back at the ballot box. Good luck with getting 60 seats for that in 2014.

oldandslow

03-23-2010, 07:25 AM

If you think it's just republicans pandering to their base you'd be wrong. They are also pandering to independents, the majority of which don't like this bill and see it as more erosion of their rights.

Republicans will keep the pressure up and dems will pay the price in November.

Dems will lose some, but they would have anyway...My bet is the the dems will lose the house but keep the senate. Look at the number of safe seats. I would also bet you dollars to donuts that the economy revives just enough for BO to keep his job in 2012.

stevieray

03-23-2010, 07:32 AM

. When people actually read whats in the bill
another bullshit promise.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2010, 07:39 AM

Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago. the federal government has the right to dictate to individuals anything it wants to dictate to in the USA. Individual states trying to "protect" their rights have consistently been struck down. This will be no different. It's just gamemanship and politics. Republicans pandering to their base. It's going no where.

That's a nice plug for fascism speech there. Not to mention a serious drubbing of our Constitution which you don't seem to care about.
You don't know history either. States defeated Bush's real ID by refusing to implement it. That's a victory....recent history too.

mlyonsd

03-23-2010, 07:40 AM

Dems will lose some, but they would have anyway...My bet is the the dems will lose the house but keep the senate. Look at the number of safe seats. I would also bet you dollars to donuts that the economy revives just enough for BO to keep his job in 2012.

Oh I don't doubt for a minute dems keep the Senate and I see no reason Obama would lose his job as of yet.

I'm just pointing out what the republicans stand to gain by keeping this POS bill in the news.

BucEyedPea

03-23-2010, 07:41 AM

Dems will lose some, but they would have anyway...My bet is the the dems will lose the house but keep the senate. Look at the number of safe seats. I would also bet you dollars to donuts that the economy revives just enough for BO to keep his job in 2012.

I don't think so. When people actually read whats in the bill and get past the Republican demonizing, death panels to kill grandma lies they will see there are a lot of benefits to this bill. But this thread was about the legal ways to roll the bill back. Your talking about roling it back at the ballot box. Good luck with getting 60 seats for that in 2014.

Hold this thought. When people read the bill they will see what is in the bill. That action is not an act of demonization, it's reading and understanding the content. Even you would have to agree that that step should be done before a vote. If in fact a demon is found, its a demon in the bill and the bill, not a party would and should be demonized and the demon removed. If a Republican discovers a demon or a democrat discovers the demon, the demon is there.

I fully expect that when we see the crap in this bill that has zero to do with health care reform it will be astounding. And when we learn what deals were made even democrats will be upset. And the real price tag will become more and more understood over time.

The legal remedy issue is one that both sides should support. If in fact there are constitutional issues we must have them examined and ruled upon. The SCOTUS is the third leg that protects all citizens from the acts of either congress or the executive. Its their job.

Mr. Kotter

03-23-2010, 07:42 AM

Remember when Obama took a cheap shot at the SCOTUS during his SOTU speech? As Irony would have it, that very same SCOTUS may very well be the deciding factor on his health care bill.

Karma can be a real bitch.

Hail Mary, much? :rolleyes:

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 07:43 AM

Hold this thought. When people read the bill they will see what is in the bill. That action is not an act of demonization, it's reading and understanding the content.BS. Content my azz. Please show me where in the bill there are death panels? Show me where the government will decide how long you live and what care you recieve at the end of your life? that is pure BS and demonizing the bill by spreading bald faced lies.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 08:11 AM

Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago. the federal government has the right to dictate to individuals anything it wants to dictate to in the USA. Individual states trying to "protect" their rights have consistently been struck down. This will be no different. It's just gamemanship and politics. Republicans pandering to their base. It's going no where.

That's an argument against nullification, but it's not such a good argument against the legal challenges that states are launching. One significant issue that could make it to the SCOTUS is whether or not the commerce clause is sufficient to justify this legislation in general and the mandated coverage in particular. It's a little hard to imagine the court overturning on the basis of the commerce clause, but it wouldn't completely shock me given that the court is as conservative as it's ever been in most of our lifetimes. Unlike most of the Supreme Courts of the twentieth century, this court doesn't consider the commerce clause to be a blank check for the federal government.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 08:13 AM

I don't think so. When people actually read whats in the bill and get past the Republican demonizing, death panels to kill grandma lies they will see there are a lot of benefits to this bill. But this thread was about the legal ways to roll the bill back. Your talking about roling it back at the ballot box. Good luck with getting 60 seats for that in 2014.

It's a major tax drag on our economy in the short term and a deficit-exploding entitlement in the long run.

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 08:14 AM

BS. Content my azz. Please show me where in the bill there are death panels? Show me where the government will decide how long you live and what care you recieve at the end of your life? that is pure BS and demonizing the bill by spreading bald faced lies.

I dont think they ever used the words death panels in the bill either. The demons of reality are in the bill. Now you can spout off all day long about the quality of the debate about the bill and do this silly stuff till the cows come home. None of that will change the fact that once the bill is read and understood we will know with not a doubt what were we given in the bill.

I can pretty well agree we wont find death panels defined and the rules they must follow enumerated. Nor is there going to be a chart that shows who gets to live how long.

But I can trust that there are consequenses that will begin to be understood once we understand the details.

Knowing you have not read it and I have not read it, Do you believe that under the proposal that the funding for individuals health care is unlimited?

Do you believe that as the rules are defined by the Secretary that they will have constraints on what options are available to doctors and patients?

Garcia Bronco

03-23-2010, 08:25 AM

Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago.

LOL. The Civil War didn't strike down the 10th amendment.

Garcia Bronco

03-23-2010, 08:27 AM

I dont think they ever used the words death panels in the bill either. The demons of reality are in the bill. Now you can spout off all day long about the quality of the debate about the bill and do this silly stuff till the cows come home. None of that will change the fact that once the bill is read and understood we will know with not a doubt what were we given in the bill.

I can pretty well agree we wont find death panels defined and the rules they must follow enumerated. Nor is there going to be a chart that shows who gets to live how long.

But I can trust that there are consequenses that will begin to be understood once we understand the details.

Knowing you have not read it and I have not read it, Do you believe that under the proposal that the funding for individuals health care is unlimited?

Do you believe that as the rules are defined by the Secretary that they will have constraints on what options are available to doctors and patients?

I have read it and there will be limits to what anyone will pay to keep anyone alive.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 08:30 AM

I dont think they ever used the words death panels in the bill either. The demons of reality are in the bill. Now you can spout off all day long about the quality of the debate about the bill and do this silly stuff till the cows come home. None of that will change the fact that once the bill is read and understood we will know with not a doubt what were we given in the bill.

I can pretty well agree we wont find death panels defined and the rules they must follow enumerated. Nor is there going to be a chart that shows who gets to live how long.

But I can trust that there are consequenses that will begin to be understood once we understand the details.

Knowing you have not read it and I have not read it, Do you believe that under the proposal that the funding for individuals health care is unlimited?

Do you believe that as the rules are defined by the Secretary that they will have constraints on what options are available to doctors and patients?

The death panels are a couple of steps down the road. First they have to make insurance unaffordable for everyone so that there is an outcry for a public option or single payer. Then, when single payer becomes reality or when the public option squeezes private insurance out and effectively becomes single payer, cost containment will demand draconian measures including death panels to limit "excessive" consumption.

In the meantime, they'll have a commission evaluating treatments and presenting guidelines that insurance companies will be able to point to when they deny coverage for unproven treatments.

Garcia Bronco

03-23-2010, 08:33 AM

The death panels are a couple of steps down the road. First they have to make insurance unaffordable for everyone so that there is an outcry for a public option or single payer. Then, when single payer becomes reality or when the public option squeezes private insurance out and effectively becomes single payer, cost containment will demand draconian measures including death panels to limit "excessive" consumption.

In the meantime, they'll have a commission evaluating treatments and presenting guidelines that insurance companies will be able to point to when they deny coverage for unproven treatments.

It already exists. The government has told my Grandmother to roll over and die because of her age and illness. Medicaid won't pay for her treatment or care anymore. Which is the problem with this law....it doesn't address costs in anyway because it does not address cost at the foundation.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 08:40 AM

The death panels are a couple of steps down the road. First they have to make insurance unaffordable for everyone so that there is an outcry for a public option or single payer. Then, when single payer becomes reality or when the public option squeezes private insurance out and effectively becomes single payer, cost containment will demand draconian measures including death panels to limit "excessive" consumption.

In the meantime, they'll have a commission evaluating treatments and presenting guidelines that insurance companies will be able to point to when they deny coverage for unproven treatments.
Are you sure you don't think 9/11 was an inside job? The moon landing was faked?:Poke:

thecoffeeguy

03-23-2010, 08:47 AM

I've been saying this for a while ever since he made his SOTU address.

Obamacare will make it's way to the US Supreme Court.....where BO is not exactly the most popular person right now.

I thought of the same thing. That would be the most awesome uberness; to have the SCOTUS throw out Obamacare! Karma is a biatch!

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 08:50 AM

The death panels are a couple of steps down the road. First they have to make insurance unaffordable for everyone so that there is an outcry for a public option or single payer. Then, when single payer becomes reality or when the public option squeezes private insurance out and effectively becomes single payer, cost containment will demand draconian measures including death panels to limit "excessive" consumption.

In the meantime, they'll have a commission evaluating treatments and presenting guidelines that insurance companies will be able to point to when they deny coverage for unproven treatments.

I think avoiding words and phrases like "death panels" serves everyone better. There wont be any such monster.

One question that better defines the impact of this HC reform for me is that in every government program everyone and every situation will be required to be treated in the same manner without exceptions. Any violation of equal treatment for all will be met with a mountain of lawsuits. And if grampa dies and some suit proves that those limits were contributing to his demise the government by virtue of the fact they set the limits will have to be accountable. (Maybe this is why Tort Reform is needed?)

That is a pittfall that people will not understand until it hits home. To accomplish that they will have to establish rules and approved proceedures. How they define them is unknown because the bill will not have those specifics, it will only define who is empowered to set the rules. If Limits and restrictions are defined, is the party or agency who set the limit responsible for the results that occur as a result?

Treating everone the same sounds nice and soft and fuzzy. Its not.

The qustion of limits to end of life care is simple reality. The danger underlying this is that limits will be a financial consideration. Because everyone will be treated the same and rules will have to apply in all situations limits will be required and defined.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 08:52 AM

It already exists. The government has told my Grandmother to roll over and die because of her age and illness. Medicaid won't pay for her treatment or care anymore. Which is the problem with this law....it doesn't address costs in anyway because it does not address cost at the foundation.

Certainly. I was talking about the scenario for those of us who are still currently using private insurance.

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 09:49 AM

Certainly. I was talking about the scenario for those of us who are still currently using private insurance.

The depth of discussion will have to move above moon landings, 9-11, and snipey avoiding of questions or people will just have to wait and be surprised like opening Easter baskets.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 09:52 AM

The depth of discussion will have to move above moon landings, 9-11, and snipey avoiding of questions or people will just have to wait and be surprised like opening Easter baskets.

I don't know what you're talking about.

The Mad Crapper

03-23-2010, 10:11 AM

jeeezzz how many threads do you have to start on the legal ways Republicans are wasting their time with lawsuits?

Why is it a waste of time? There is nothing frivolous about these lawsuits.

petegz28

03-23-2010, 10:35 AM

The States are suing to have the mandate talken out and that only. The fact that the whole bill will unravel if it is taken out is the fault of the Democrats for creating a bill that hinges on an unconstitutional process.

The Mad Crapper

03-23-2010, 10:36 AM

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-sinking-ship.jpg

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 10:41 AM

Why is it a waste of time? There is nothing frivolous about these lawsuits.The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

The Mad Crapper

03-23-2010, 10:45 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A on why Moonbattery is dangerous to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness:

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens.

talastan

03-23-2010, 11:06 AM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

Really BRC? You can't be serious. Yes we had a war on this, but that war did not change the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments still exist; at least until the federal government makes them dissappear. This HC bill is a major step in that direction. If this belief that the federal government is the final authority on all things, doesn't stop we'll end up in Socialism, Facism, or a Civil War. Which side does anyone here want to be on?

petegz28

03-23-2010, 11:07 AM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

This has to be one of the most idiotic things you have ever said.

talastan

03-23-2010, 11:11 AM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

Secondly the example you used was regarding rights, and Health Insurance is not a right. The federal government has mandated that everyone has to purchase a private product. If someone doesn't throw this out where do the mandates stop? Mandatory Treasury Bond purchasing, Mandatory purchasing from GM/Chrysler, this legislation opens up a completely new ballgame with Federal control of free enterprise.

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 11:17 AM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. .

BRC....Is this honestly your understanding?

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 11:19 AM

My God. If BRC is honest in that statement and he is normally as up front as anyone on here, how many other people believe that statement in this country. That is shocking.

The Mad Crapper

03-23-2010, 11:23 AM

My God. If BRC is honest in that statement and he is normally as up front as anyone on here, how many other people believe that statement in this country. That is shocking.

It's not shocking when you understand moonbattery.

HonestChieffan

03-23-2010, 11:40 AM

Well we have our share of moonbats too. Its very disturbing to think that we actually have citizens who have that position or understanding.

talastan

03-23-2010, 11:44 AM

Well we have our share of moonbats too. Its very disturbing to think that we actually have Political Leaders who have that position or understanding.

FYP

patteeu

03-23-2010, 12:01 PM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

Where'd you find that in the constitution? Can the federal government require it's citizens to contribute money to the Baptist Church? Can it require it's citizens to take a risky drug/vaccine? Can it require it's citizens to abort every child after a couple's first one? I hope you can see that what you said above is wrong.

orange

03-23-2010, 12:54 PM

Secondly the example you used was regarding rights, and Health Insurance is not a right. The federal government has mandated that everyone has to purchase a private product. If someone doesn't throw this out where do the mandates stop? Mandatory Treasury Bond purchasing, Mandatory purchasing from GM/Chrysler, this legislation opens up a completely new ballgame with Federal control of free enterprise.

Speaking of "Irony."

We already have mandatory purchasing of Treasury bonds/bills. We've had it for around 75 years. It has withstood multiple court challenges.

"Reformers" on the right want to replace it with a system where individuals will have to use a portion of their income to purchase PRIVATE investment products. And they seem to have no problem with the constitutionality of that. "Reformers" including the Republican Party - and you, just yesterday.

:)

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 01:02 PM

Where'd you find that in the constitution? Can the federal government require it's citizens to contribute money to the Baptist Church? Can it require it's citizens to take a risky drug/vaccine? Can it require it's citizens to abort every child after a couple's first one? I hope you can see that what you said above is wrong.I'm not a constitutional lawyer so how far the federal government can go to dictate policy or practices to its citzens? But, I'll bet you some cold hard cash that this doesn't cross the line and the SCOTUS allows it to happen.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 01:13 PM

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so how far the federal government can go to dictate policy or practices to its citzens? But, I'll bet you some cold hard cash that this doesn't cross the line and the SCOTUS allows it to happen.

I won't bet you. If I had to guess, I'd guess that it won't be struck down, but there's a significant (meaning more than just negligible) chance that it will be given that the court is currently made up of a majority who views the commerce clause with at least some idea that it has limits.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 01:21 PM

I won't bet you. If I had to guess, I'd guess that it won't be struck down, but there's a significant (meaning more than just negligible) chance that it will be given that the court is currently made up of a majority who views the commerce clause with at least some idea that it has limits.You can never say for sure after all, its the same bunch of lame azz activist old geezers who thought it would be an okay idea to turn our elections over to corporations.

man I like this demonizing the "others". Mighty convient.

go bowe

03-23-2010, 01:35 PM

It will be a long ass haul for this to make it to the SC and all these dominated Lib courts prior to the SC will make sure of it.i dunno...

the supremes have original jurisdiction of suits brought by states against the united states...

that means the suits go directly to the supremes, bypassing all lower courts...

the supremes will decide these suits, but the president's remarks will not in any way affect the court's decision...

the conservatives already hate him and the libs love him and who knows what kennedy will decide?

ChiefaRoo

03-23-2010, 01:47 PM

I don't think so. When people actually read whats in the bill and get past the Republican demonizing, death panels to kill grandma lies they will see there are a lot of benefits to this bill. But this thread was about the legal ways to roll the bill back. Your talking about roling it back at the ballot box. Good luck with getting 60 seats for that in 2014.

The Federal Govt. has NEVER demanded under the threat of fines or possible jail time that the public is required to BUY a product from a PRIVATE company just because they exist. This is a whole new issue for the courts. I hope the Supreme Court strikes this down and then the states can opt out of this disaster. Later the new Congress can pare it down and repeal the insanity of one size fits all HC while keeping some of the good law in place regarding pre-existing conditions etc.

ChiefaRoo

03-23-2010, 01:50 PM

You can never say for sure after all, its the same bunch of lame azz activist old geezers who thought it would be an okay idea to turn our elections over to corporations.

man I like this demonizing the "others". Mighty convient.

These "old geezers" are far more distinguished and learned than you will ever be. The only activists on the court are liberal. The rest of them are Constitutionalists by and large.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 01:53 PM

These "old geezers" are far more distinguished and learned than you will ever be. The only activists on the court are liberal. The rest of them are Constitutionalists by and large.ROFL yeah thats why they allowed corporations to take over our elections. No activism there....:doh!:

ChiefaRoo

03-23-2010, 01:59 PM

ROFL yeah thats why they allowed corporations to take over our elections. No activism there....:doh!:

You're drawing your own dubious conclusion by saying anyone is taking anything over. All they have done is said Co's can use money to support a point of view. Sounds like Freedom of Speech to me. Just because they have more money doesn't make it wrong. The Unions use the money from their indentured serfs,,, errr,,, members to support causes the serfs,,, errr,,, members would never agree with. Equal playing field. So stuff it. It's the settled law of the land.

orange

03-23-2010, 02:02 PM

The Federal Govt. has NEVER demanded under the threat of fines or possible jail time that the public is required to BUY a product from a PRIVATE company just because they exist.

Don't expect the courts to accept your overwrought hysterical language. There are NO threats of jail time in the Bill. If you don't buy insurance, you'll have to pay more taxes. Americans have ALWAYS been held responsible to pay their taxes.

And no one is required to buy anything "just because they exist." That's why very low income people aren't mandated to buy, or penalized when they don't.

CoMoChief

03-23-2010, 02:15 PM

The federal government has a right to dictate whatever it wants to its citzens. The states don't have the right to set their own laws. duhhhh civil rights? jim Crowe laws ring a bell....It's decided law. Its a waste of time.

Ummm no it doesn't.

Garcia Bronco

03-23-2010, 02:22 PM

Don't expect the courts to accept your overwrought hysterical language. There are NO threats of jail time in the Bill. If you don't buy insurance, you'll have to pay more taxes. Americans have ALWAYS been held responsible to pay their taxes.

And no one is required to buy anything "just because they exist." That's why very low income people aren't mandated to buy, or penalized when they don't.

Jail time was in HR 3200.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 02:25 PM

Don't expect the courts to accept your overwrought hysterical language. There are NO threats of jail time in the Bill. If you don't buy insurance, you'll have to pay more taxes. Americans have ALWAYS been held responsible to pay their taxes.

And no one is required to buy anything "just because they exist." That's why very low income people aren't mandated to buy, or penalized when they don't.Don't bother with facts. You are not one of them so they are not listening because you are an extreme facist and unworthy.

BigRedChief

03-23-2010, 02:26 PM

Jail time was in HR 3200.So friggin what? It's not in this bill that was signed.

blaise

03-23-2010, 02:28 PM

Don't bother with facts. You are not one of them so they are not listening because you are an extreme facist and unworthy.

Sounds like what people called Republicans when Bush was in office.

RJ

03-23-2010, 02:29 PM

Yeah, Obama was a little smart-alecky with the Supreme Court, but I doubt if they'll overturn the whole healthcare thing over it. Maybe defriend him on Facebook or not talk to him in the hallway, but that's about it.

Mr. Kotter

03-23-2010, 02:30 PM

Sounds like what people called Republicans when Bush was in office.

Fair point.

Glad to see how we can all be such adults about that these days.

patteeu

03-23-2010, 02:36 PM

i dunno...

the supremes have original jurisdiction of suits brought by states against the united states...

that means the suits go directly to the supremes, bypassing all lower courts...

the supremes will decide these suits, but the president's remarks will not in any way affect the court's decision...

the conservatives already hate him and the libs love him and who knows what kennedy will decide?

Hey Jenson, that sounds like the description of a "wild card" to me. ;)

ChiefaRoo

03-23-2010, 02:43 PM

Don't expect the courts to accept your overwrought hysterical language. There are NO threats of jail time in the Bill. If you don't buy insurance, you'll have to pay more taxes. Americans have ALWAYS been held responsible to pay their taxes.

And no one is required to buy anything "just because they exist." That's why very low income people aren't mandated to buy, or penalized when they don't.

You're parsing the language. The facts is 16,000 IRS agents are being hired to enforce this fiasco and if you try to keep your money off the grid and they find out through scrutiny and audits (Have you ever been through and audit by the way? It's like a prostate exam) they'll simply rule however they wish and present you with a bill. If you don't agree to pay they will continue to fine, harrass and ultimately jail you.

Further, while low income people will get subsidies the middle and upper class will not. If you decide you don't want mandated HC you will be FORCED to buy it under further penalty.

The IRS will abuse you and anyone who gets in their way. They will in fact become an unelected enforcement agency that overreaches it's taxation monitoring authority by becoming the HC mandate police.

ChiefaRoo

03-23-2010, 02:46 PM

Don't bother with facts. You are not one of them so they are not listening because you are an extreme facist and unworthy.

Actually, in fact you and Orange are what the commies used to call "useful idiots"

Dallas Chief

03-23-2010, 11:06 PM

Do you even read or know history? the battle over state rights was fought 140+ years ago. the federal government has the right to dictate to individuals anything it wants to dictate to in the USA. Individual states trying to "protect" their rights have consistently been struck down. This will be no different. It's just gamemanship and politics. Republicans pandering to their base. It's going no where.

I know I am late to the party here, but good god man! You need to re-read your comment. Seriously, you need to go back to high school and retake US Government. Your understanding of how things work in this country, and YES the history of our nation, has become twisted and gnarled. How can you in good conscience support the notion that the Federal Government can dictate whatever it wants to the people? Maybe you have no concsience, maybe you only share a collective conscience with those that agree with your world view? You need to think about that word, dictate, study it, understand it. Do you really believe that word has any place in our government? Think man!
Posted via Mobile Device

BigRedChief

03-24-2010, 06:34 AM

I know I am late to the party here, but good god man! You need to re-read your comment. Seriously, you need to go back to high school and retake US Government. Your understanding of how things work in this country, and YES the history of our nation, has become twisted and gnarled. How can you in good conscience support the notion that the Federal Government can dictate whatever it wants to the people? Maybe you have no concsience, maybe you only share a collective conscience with those that agree with your world view? You need to think about that word, dictate, study it, understand it. Do you really believe that word has any place in our government? Think man!
Posted via Mobile DeviceThis adominshment about learning history and the consitution from a citzen of a state who's board of education feels that the modern day conservative movement had more impact on out country and is more important than learning about Thomas Jefferson and his impact on the country. And making sure that the textbooks say Joe Mccarthy wasn't such a bad guy. ROFL

You can't re-write history....welll unless your a student in Texas then you get to have your own facts.

Mr. Kotter

03-24-2010, 07:05 AM

This adominshment about learning history and the consitution from a citzen of a state who's board of education feels that the modern day conservative movement had more impact on out country and is more important than learning about Thomas Jefferson and his impact on the country. And making sure that the textbooks say Joe Mccarthy wasn't such a bad guy. ROFL

You can't re-write history....welll unless your a student in Texas then you get to have your own facts.

As a government and history teacher, your understanding of the supremacy clause is, to be generous, not accurate. In brief, the supremacy clause applies only to those areas in which the federal government has either exclusive or concurrent powers. If it's an area of reserved powers, then the feds may have to defer to the states--depending on the mood of the courts.

BigRedChief

03-24-2010, 07:12 AM

As a government and history teacher, your understanding of the supremacy clause is, to be generous, not accurate. In brief, the supremacy clause applies only to those areas in which the federal government has either exclusive or concurrent powers. If it's an area of reserved powers, then the feds may have to defer to the states--depending on the mood of the courts.I have no clue about how the supremacy clause has been applied throughout our history. I'm not a constitutional lawyer either.

I don't need to know that information backwards and forward to know that requiring its citzens to have health insurance is not a violation of the constitution. Now that being said I don't like the idea and its a slippery slope I'd rather not go down but what other options do we have?

Mr. Kotter

03-24-2010, 07:17 AM

I have no clue about how the supremacy clause has been applied throughout our history. I'm not a constitutional lawyer either.

I don't need to know that information backwards and forward to know that requiring its citzens to have health insurance is not a violation of the constitution. Now that being said I don't like the idea and its a slippery slope I'd rather not go down but what other options do we have?

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, it isn't a stretch to see this being the sticking point if the SC decides to take on this issue. There is a legitimate argument to be had, regarding federal mandates in the area of healthcare. Like you, I think they should come down on our side; but I also know there is another side to the argument....which the courts may choose to back.

Dallas Chief

03-24-2010, 07:27 AM

This adominshment about learning history and the consitution from a citzen of a state who's board of education feels that the modern day conservative movement had more impact on out country and is more important than learning about Thomas Jefferson and his impact on the country. And making sure that the textbooks say Joe Mccarthy wasn't such a bad guy. ROFL

You can't re-write history....welll unless your a student in Texas then you get to have your own facts.

Wow. That is the best you could come up with? I can't even say that was a good attempt at deflecting the admonishment. I don't judge you for your ignorance, I simply pity you for it. I was shocked by your misrepresentation of our government as having dictatorial powers and your support of said authority. I don't recall you having that same mindset during the last 4 Bush years though??? I thought you were more of an "...of the people, by the people, for the people," type guy. I guess I was wrong...:shake:

BigRedChief

03-24-2010, 07:29 AM

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, it isn't a stretch to see this being the sticking point if the SC decides to take on this issue. There is a legitimate argument to be had, regarding federal mandates in the area of healthcare. Like you, I think they should come down on our side; but I also know there is another side to the argument....which the courts may choose to back.wellll theres also a side on this board that says to just let citzens bleed to death in the streets also. I'm really clear on who's on the right side of history. Just MHO.

Mr. Kotter

03-24-2010, 07:37 AM

wellll theres also a side on this board that says to just let citzens bleed to death in the streets also. I'm really clear on who's on the right side of history. Just MHO.

Hyperbole aside, I don't support that notion anymore than you do. However, I'm adamant about the fact that everyone who expects to be treated for illnesses or injuries....be compelled to pay for their own medical coverage and expenses, so the rest of us can stop paying for the services they receive. It will be for the courts to decide if I'm right; or if they will permit the minimalist/anarchist sentiments of the libertarian/talk-radio-show-groupies approach to prevail.

alnorth

03-24-2010, 07:46 AM

Didn't read the whole thread, but these lawsuits are going nowhere. Some of the legal critics are focusing on the wrong thing (interstate commerce, or lack of commerce)

The SCOTUS has been very deferential to the congress in taxation. This is basically an increase to the income tax for everyone, combined with a way to avoid the tax. If the congress can give me a tax break for buying a home or buying a car that gets great gas mileage, they sure as hell can give me a tax break for buying insurance. Those who think the individual mandate (method to avoid the tax increase) is going to be struck down are living in a fantasy-land.

The Mad Crapper

03-24-2010, 09:52 AM

I know I am late to the party here, but good god man! You need to re-read your comment. Seriously, you need to go back to high school and retake US Government. Your understanding of how things work in this country, and YES the history of our nation, has become twisted and gnarled. How can you in good conscience support the notion that the Federal Government can dictate whatever it wants to the people? Maybe you have no concsience, maybe you only share a collective conscience with those that agree with your world view? You need to think about that word, dictate, study it, understand it. Do you really believe that word has any place in our government? Think man!
Posted via Mobile Device